[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t seems (“forgive me, I have sinned against You, my Lord”) I’ve been misquoting Kenny Anthony. Referencing his last House performance, I reported that he had committed to Hansard the following gem: “Elections are about revenge, malice, spite, and ill will.” I wrote the quoted line in a recent article, after carefully monitoring the Vieux Fort South MP live on NTN at budget time, and listening later more closely to a recording. Alas, twice did my ears deceive me. It turns out that what he actually said was by my measure, far more mind-boggling than what I had written in error.
Consider the following, taken from the report of the Kenny Anthony-initiated 1998 commission of inquiry that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper conducted into a trio of events in public administration in Saint Lucia in the 1990s: “From the limited but not unrevealing perspective of the Commission of Inquiry I have discerned a culture in Saint Lucia of studied indifference or, at the very least, inattention to the practice, even the concept of public accountability—a cultural climate in which administrative torpor is often the consequence, and malpractices in government including corruption can thrive, unhampered by detection or, if and when uncovered, by disciplinary action . . . Ministers and civil servants should be reminded of the rules relating to public expenditure; and those persons appointed to public authorities or government agencies must comply strictly with their remits. But more—a great deal more—will be needed to dispel the pervasive influence of the culture that I have identified. Otherwise, the allegations of corruption which prompted the government to establish the commission, will continue to flow. The suspicion in the public’s mind that the machinery of government is not working, and consequently that corruption is rife, is almost as damaging to the public weal as individual corruption itself.”
Additionally: “The culture of indifference or inattention to public accountability has now (at last) been, by implication, addressed in the shape of the new post-May 1997 government of Saint Lucia which appropriately decided to set up a commission of inquiry pursuant to a clear commitment in its election manifesto. If the new government has at least put Saint Lucia on the road to good governance by encouraging the exposure of past failures, the future demands a permanent searchlight . . . Saint Lucian sunlight on government has been too often clouded over by an unwillingness of those in authority to expose to public scrutiny the public activities of either themselves or of others.”
Then there is this crucial recommendation: “Saint Lucians should be assured that failures and malpractices in government, once identified, will not go publicly unnoticed. And a system of public accountability alone can ensure that.”
As Sir Louis underscored in his report, the decision by the Kenny Anthony administration to set up a commission of inquiry with respect to alleged past misdeeds represented both the fulfillment of an election pledge and, perhaps more importantly, the new government’s commitment to good governance by encouraging the exposure of past failures. As for Kenny Anthony’s shocking assertion at the most recent House sitting that the Allen Chastanet government’s announced intention to fulfill its election promise to clear the suffocating smoke that surrounds such as Grynberg, Juffali and the St. Jude Hospital debacle was motivated by revenge and malice, consider the following by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper: “The new [Kenny Anthony] government might positively have laid itself open to serious criticism had it not set up the commission of inquiry. The Saint Lucia Labour Party assumed power of government after almost fifteen years in opposition. During the election campaign the Labour Party made ‘good governance’ an electoral promise and agreed to appoint a commission of inquiry to review all cases of alleged corruption.”
Noted the commissioner in his report: “Under the heading Anti-Corruption, the manifesto said: ‘The long rule of the UWP has been characterized by the increasing abuse of public office for private gain by many individuals closely associated with the party. The Labour Party has always maintained that abuse of public office should never be tolerated and preventive measures must be put in place to discourage corruption at all levels. To this end an SLP government will appoint a commission to review all cases of alleged corruption, determine which instances provide a basis for prosecution and, most important, to recommend measures to prevent recurrence of these abuses.”
The perceptive Sir Louis had also observed the ambience at the time of his visit: “From the outset there flowed an underlying current of political hostility to the inquiry, punctuated at times in the inquiry process by overt political conduct on the part of some of the participants. No doubt, acting members of the outgoing administration of the United Workers Party felt aggrieved at the new Labour Party administration putting under the searchlight some contentious public activities of the pre-election period. It was natural that the battles on the hustings, won and lost on the day of the general election on 22 May 1997, would be refought, post election. The political rivalries did in fact linger on. But it must be remembered that one of the promises in the election manifesto of the St Lucia Labour Party in proclaiming future good government was that governance of Saint Lucia in the recent past would be subject to a public inquiry. This commission of inquiry is the fulfillment of that electoral promise!”
For those who preferred not to pursue an investigation, Sir Louis advised: “The public inquiry may not be the perfect instrument for finding out the truth about scandals, disasters and other defects in public administration. But it is the recognized tool of modern democratic society that values overt public accountability. Like other modes of dispute resolution, it can be an imperfect instrument for resolving issues of public importance. But it is the best that human society can do.”
What had transpired even before Sir Louis Blom-Cooper set foot on Saint Lucian soil, quite apart from the promises of the SLP’s election manifesto and other public pledges to investigate leading members of the UWP, is worthy of mention. Perhaps lead among the contributors to the post-election atmosphere was the egregious Throne Speech normally penned by the day’s prime minister, in this case Kenny Anthony. The governor general was Sir George Mallet. He had been for close to four decades Prime Minister John Compton’s deputy and the MP for Castries Central. At Compton’s behest, Mallet had vacated his parliamentary seat to accommodate the disastrous ambitions of Vaughan Lewis.
Following, some snippets (actually they might more appropriately be considered blows below the belt) from the Throne Speech, delivered on 17 June, 1997: “More than any government in our history, my government will have a heavy legislative agenda . . . Corruption has been identified as the number-one issue in the minds of Saint Lucians. The extent of the public sentiment has found expression in popular culture, in calypsos such as Jaunty’s ‘Bobol List’ which expressed in no uncertain terms the revulsion that the ordinary Saint Lucian felt at the abuse of public office for private gain . . . My government will, in conformity with the promises made during the election campaign [here we go yet again!], establish a commission to investigate all cases of alleged corruption and to establish which cases warrant further legal action and prosecution. We are resolute to pursue this course of action because the people have cried for justice, and once a blind eye is turned to corruption the institutional environment is created for its unchecked proliferation. We must develop a culture of outrage against corruption.”
As if the new government’s intentions were not already clear enough—and obviously honorable—Kenny Anthony later added in 1998: “In the society we seek to refashion, no individual or organization, whether it is the private sector, NGOs, unions or Members of Parliament, should feel immune from accountability.” But that was 1998. Today, when the prime minister’s shoes are filled by feet not his own, Anthony has revised his definition of accountability to mean synonymous with personal vendettas. Referring to the prime minister’s declared intention to clear the fog around Grynberg, what Allen Chastanet’s immediate predecessor actually said during his most recent House address was: “It is clear that his actions [not elections, as I had earlier written] are motivated by revenge, malice, spite and ill-will.”
But clear to whom? The MP for Vieux Fort South offered no justification for his shocking assertion that the day’s prime minister had more on his mind than accountability when he spoke of clearing away the suffocating smoke around St Jude and Grynberg. The indisputable truth is that the referenced announcement contained no accusations, only questions obviously in need of answers. The Vieux Fort MP also fired at the prime minister this barrage: “I have been through persecution before. A commission of inquiry, Rochamel, West Coast Road . . . I’ve been through all of that. I have been persecuted more than once. But he himself must never come to the altar of justice with unclean hands and mind. Don’t do it or you’ll pay the price . . . What I promise the minster of finance [also prime minister] is this: When he embarks on whatever action he embarks, I will make sure that he reaps the whirlwind for his actions!’
Yes, so now Kenny Anthony, who as prime minister in 1998 had initiated the Blom-Cooper inquiry in fulfillment of a campaign promise; who, mere months after taking office, had insisted his immediate predecessors Sir John Compton and Vaughan Lewis be held accountable for allegations of corruption under their watch, all in the name of good governance and a new way forward, has now determined similar action by the current prime minister motivated by “revenge, malice, spite and ill-will”—deserving of the proverbial “whirlwind.” I might add that Blom-Cooper declared the Anthony administration’s allegations against Compton and Lewis altogether without merit!
Nevertheless “the new government of St Lucia might positively have laid itself open to serious criticism had it not set up the commission of inquiry. The fact that the earlier commission was aborted as a result of a successful judicial challenge by Sir John and Dr Vaughan Lewis (two former prime ministers) might have induced the government to abandon the whole exercise in the cause of controlling public expenditure. That it persisted in accordance with its electoral pledge, to considerable financial cost, should, in my view, be applauded and not excoriated by the losing politicians of the pre-May 1997 government. I ought to add, for avoidance of any misunderstanding, that the premise under which the commission was to be appointed, namely corruption, did not and could not preordain the commission’s findings. No actual corruption has been found . . . Yet, as I explain hereafter, bad governance is the breeding ground for corrupt practices.”
Final reminder: This is how Prime Minister Allen Chastanet started the 2018 budget debate: “Mr. Speaker, toward the conclusion of our last sitting I referenced the thousands of Saint Lucians who on June 6, 2016 freely chose to place the United Workers Party in office under my leadership. They did so because they had placed their faith in the promises my party made them. We admit some of the pledges we made will be more difficult to achieve than others, because there are very few quick fixes . . . One of the promises we made at election-time, Mr. Speaker, was to introduce to government affairs real transparency and accountability.” The prime minister then went on to identify the smoky issues to be investigated. No surprise that the once upon a time aggressive advocate of good governance and its umbilical ties to campaign pledges and accountability neglected to mention the prime minister’s stated motivations for the investigations!
